Getting it right onKudankulam
New Delhi's handling of the protests at
Kudankulam marks some improvement
over the ham-handed way in which
popular concerns over the Jaitapur
nuclear power project in Maharashtra
were dealt with. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has shown the
way with her deft handling of the
protests by the local population,
shifting from appeals to support the
project to articulating the concerns of
the people of the project area and throwing the ball into the centre's
court. The central government needs to
understand that routine prime
ministerial assurances will not work in
the post-Fukushima era. It must come
up with a radically different approach, in form and substance, to the question
of nuclear safety — if it has to
safeguard the future of the
Kudankulam project and other civilian
nuclear ventures. The protagonists of
nuclear power are on a reasonably good wicket at Kudankulam. The
VVER-1000 reactors have been in
operation across the world at a number
of locations for several years. They are
considered to be inherently safer than
the untested EPR design of the French nuclear operator AREVA or the reactor
designs of the Fukushima vintage. India cannot ignore nuclear power in
the era of global warming. Its civilian
nuclear programme is an ongoing
venture that has enjoyed public
support over the decades. In principle,
there is no reason why the Kudankulam project should not enter
operation. But this will not happen of
its own accord. The practical question is
how to address public concerns over
nuclear safety. Here a clear distinction
needs to be made between the ‘fundamentalists' who are
philosophically and absolutely opposed
to nuclear power and those who have
real and legitimate fears about nuclear
safety. Nothing the government or, for
that matter, anyone can do is likely to persuade the former group but plenty
can be done to engage democratically
and transparently with the latter.
Unfortunately, the credibility of the
Manmohan Singh government and the
nuclear establishment took a beating when it turned out that the draft
legislation for a supposedly
independent nuclear safety authority
provided it with little genuine
autonomy. The Bill makes the new
authority subordinate to a Council of Nuclear Safety dominated by the
government that may even supersede
the authority if it so pleases. The
government continues to be oblivious
of the need for a credible process of
post-Fukushima certification for the VVER-1000 installations at Kudankulam
as well as other operational nuclear
reactors. Fresh verification by
independent experts is required to
assure us that the passive safety
systems of the VVER-1000 reactors are adequate or can be suitably augmented
to prevent the dangers of meltdown
from residual heat as a consequence of
coolant circulation failure in the
background of a catastrophic natural
event. The challenge to Kudankulam can be converted into an opportunity
to set a new course on nuclear safety in
India.
Kudankulam marks some improvement
over the ham-handed way in which
popular concerns over the Jaitapur
nuclear power project in Maharashtra
were dealt with. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has shown the
way with her deft handling of the
protests by the local population,
shifting from appeals to support the
project to articulating the concerns of
the people of the project area and throwing the ball into the centre's
court. The central government needs to
understand that routine prime
ministerial assurances will not work in
the post-Fukushima era. It must come
up with a radically different approach, in form and substance, to the question
of nuclear safety — if it has to
safeguard the future of the
Kudankulam project and other civilian
nuclear ventures. The protagonists of
nuclear power are on a reasonably good wicket at Kudankulam. The
VVER-1000 reactors have been in
operation across the world at a number
of locations for several years. They are
considered to be inherently safer than
the untested EPR design of the French nuclear operator AREVA or the reactor
designs of the Fukushima vintage. India cannot ignore nuclear power in
the era of global warming. Its civilian
nuclear programme is an ongoing
venture that has enjoyed public
support over the decades. In principle,
there is no reason why the Kudankulam project should not enter
operation. But this will not happen of
its own accord. The practical question is
how to address public concerns over
nuclear safety. Here a clear distinction
needs to be made between the ‘fundamentalists' who are
philosophically and absolutely opposed
to nuclear power and those who have
real and legitimate fears about nuclear
safety. Nothing the government or, for
that matter, anyone can do is likely to persuade the former group but plenty
can be done to engage democratically
and transparently with the latter.
Unfortunately, the credibility of the
Manmohan Singh government and the
nuclear establishment took a beating when it turned out that the draft
legislation for a supposedly
independent nuclear safety authority
provided it with little genuine
autonomy. The Bill makes the new
authority subordinate to a Council of Nuclear Safety dominated by the
government that may even supersede
the authority if it so pleases. The
government continues to be oblivious
of the need for a credible process of
post-Fukushima certification for the VVER-1000 installations at Kudankulam
as well as other operational nuclear
reactors. Fresh verification by
independent experts is required to
assure us that the passive safety
systems of the VVER-1000 reactors are adequate or can be suitably augmented
to prevent the dangers of meltdown
from residual heat as a consequence of
coolant circulation failure in the
background of a catastrophic natural
event. The challenge to Kudankulam can be converted into an opportunity
to set a new course on nuclear safety in
India.
Comments
Post a Comment